Grand Adventures Tour & Travel Publishing Corp.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2003

No. 75909325 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2003)

Mailed:
March 27, 2003
Paper No. 14
Bottorff
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Grand Adventures Tour & Travel Publishing Corporation
________
Serial No. 75/909,325
_______
H. Dale Langley, Jr. of The Law Firm of H. Dale Langley,
Jr., P.C. for Grand Adventures Tour & Travel Publishing
Corporation.
Won T. Oh, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 114 (K.
Margaret Le, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Quinn, Chapman and Bottorff, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Bottorff, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant has applied to register INTERLINE TRAVELREPS
(in typed form; TRAVELREPS disclaimed) for services recited
in the application, as amended, as “travel agency services,
namely, making reservations and bookings for transportation
by means of a global computer network” in Class 39, and
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE TTAB
Ser. No. 75/909,325
2
“travel agency services, namely, making reservations and
bookings for temporary lodging by means of a global
computer network” in Class 42.1
The Trademark Examining Attorney has issued a final
refusal of registration, on the ground that the mark is
merely descriptive of the recited services. See Trademark
Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1). Applicant has
appealed the final refusal.2
Applicant and the Trademark Examining Attorney filed
opening briefs, but applicant did not file a reply brief
and did not request an oral hearing. We affirm the refusal
as to the Class 39 services, but reverse the refusal as to
the Class 42 services.
A term is deemed to be merely descriptive of goods or
services, within the meaning of Trademark Act Section
2(e)(1), if it forthwith conveys an immediate idea of an
ingredient, quality, characteristic, feature, function,
purpose or use of the goods or services. See, e.g., In re
Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987), and
1 Serial No. 75/909,325, filed February 3, 2000. The application
is based on applicant’s asserted bona fide intention to use the
mark, under Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C. §1051(b).
2 Applicant paid the appeal fee for only one class. Pursuant to
the authorization granted by the cover letter accompanying
applicant’s notice of appeal, applicant’s counsel’s deposit
account will be charged the additional required $100.00 appeal
fee.
Ser. No. 75/909,325
3
In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215,
217-18 (CCPA 1978). A term need not immediately convey an
idea of each and every specific feature of the applicant’s
goods or services in order to be considered merely
descriptive; it is enough that the term describes one
significant attribute, function or property of the goods or
services. See In re H.U.D.D.L.E., 216 USPQ 358 (TTAB
1982); In re MBAssociates, 180 USPQ 338 (TTAB 1973).
Whether a term is merely descriptive is determined not in
the abstract, but in relation to the goods or services for
which registration is sought, the context in which it is or
would be used on or in connection with those goods or
services, and the possible significance that the term would
have to the average purchaser of the goods or services
because of the manner of its use; that a term may have
other meanings in different contexts is not controlling.
In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979).
Finally, “[w]hether consumers could guess what the product
[or service] is from consideration of the mark alone is not
the test.” In re American Greetings Corporation, 226 USPQ
365, 366 (TTAB 1985).
Applying these principles in the present case, we find
that INTERLINE TRAVELREPS is merely descriptive of the
Class 39 services recited in the application, i.e., “travel
Ser. No. 75/909,325
4
agency services, namely, making reservations and bookings
for transportation by means of a global computer network.”
First, we find that TRAVELREPS is the legal equivalent
of TRAVEL REPS, which itself would immediately be perceived
by consumers as the equivalent of TRAVEL REPRESENTATIVES, a
term which is merely descriptive as applied to travel
agency services. “Agent” and “representative” are
essentially synonyms,3 and “travel representative” likewise
would be viewed as being synonymous with “travel agent.”
Applicant has not contended otherwise, and in fact has
disclaimed the exclusive right to use TRAVELREPS.4
3 We take judicial notice that “agent” is defined, inter alia, as
“one that acts as the representative of another,” and that
“representative” is defined, inter alia, as “a delegate or agent
for another.” Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary
(1988) at pp. 85 and 998. The Board may take judicial notice of
dictionary definitions. See, e.g., University of Notre Dame du
Lac v. J. C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 213 USPQ 594 (TTAB 1982),
aff’d, 703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see also
TBMP §712.01.
4 In finding that TRAVELREPS is merely descriptive, we have not
relied on the Nexis evidence submitted by the Trademark Examining
Attorney showing use of “travel rep.” All of those Nexis
articles are from foreign (United Kingdom) publications, and they
therefore are not probative evidence of how the term is perceived
in the United States. See In re Consolidated Cigar Corp., 13
USPQ2d 1481 (TTAB 1989). (These articles show that the term
“travel rep” has a specific meaning in the U.K.; it refers to a
person (usually of college age) who is employed (by an airline or
tour operator, for example) as a guide or aide to travelers on
holiday. However, we have disregarded this foreign meaning of
the term in our analysis of the mere descriptiveness of
applicant’s mark, because there is no evidence that the term is
used in the United States in this manner or that the purchasing
public in the United States is aware of this meaning of the
term.)
Ser. No. 75/909,325
5
Second, we take judicial notice of the following
relevant dictionary definition5 of the word “interline”:
“adj. : relating to, involving, or carried by two or more
transportation lines.” Also, the following excerpts of
articles obtained from the Nexis database (and made of
record by the Trademark Examining Attorney) show that
“interline” has a specific meaning and usage in the context
of airline ticketing and reservations:
- from the June 16, 2000 issue of Aviation
Daily; emphasis added):
HEADLINE: United, Air Canada Begin Interlining
Electronic Tickets
BODY: United and Air Canada began linking
their electronic ticketing service this week,
making it possible for customers to use a
single electronic ticket for travel on both
carriers. The interline service claims to be
the first electronic ticketing initiative that
links two different airline computer
reservations systems.
…Canada code-share flights operated by either
carrier. Previously, customers were required
to have an individual e-ticket issued by each
airline. Later this year, the new United-Air
Canada interline electronic service also will
be available on Canadian Airlines’ flights. In
May, more than 60% of tickets used by United
passengers were electronic. Initially, United-
Air Canada interline e-tickets will be
available only when booked directly through the
airlines’ reservations center or ticket office.
Travel agency functionality to offer the e-
5 Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1993) at 1179.
Ser. No. 75/909,325
6
tickets will be introduced sometime in the
fourth quarter.
- from the June 16, 2000 edition of the Chicago
Tribune; emphasis added):
E-ticket link: United Airlines, which two
years ago broadcast its plans to develop an
electronic interline ticketing service with
rival American Airlines, conceded this week
that effort no longer is on the airline’s front
burner. Instead, the carrier announced that it
has developed an interline service with Air
Canada, which happens to be a member of the
United-dominated Star Alliance and is not a
competitor.
…Creating an interline process is important
because of the increasing numbers of passengers
who are flying with electronic tickets.
Based on this evidence, we find that the word
INTERLINE, as it appears in applicant’s mark and as it is
used in connection with applicant’s recited Class 39
services, merely describes a feature, characteristic or
component of those services. “Making of reservations and
bookings for transportation,” as recited in the
application, legally encompasses the making of airline
reservations, including airline reservations for customers
whose trips involve travel on more than one airline and who
wish to obtain a single electronic ticket for the entire
trip, rather than having to obtain a separate ticket issued
by each carrier. The Nexis evidence quoted above shows
Ser. No. 75/909,325
7
that such tickets are called “interline tickets.” The word
INTERLINE in applicant’s mark immediately informs
purchasers that applicant, as part of its travel agency
services, offers or facilitates interline ticketing
services of the type discussed in the Nexis articles.6
Finally, we find that applicant’s combining of the
merely descriptive terms INTERLINE and TRAVELREPS does not
result in a composite which is incongruous, unusual or
otherwise inherently distinctive. INTERLINE TRAVELREPS, as
applied to applicant’s Class 39 services, immediately
informs purchasers that applicant renders travel agency
services, including interline ticketing services, through
travel agents or representatives.
For the reasons discussed above, we find that
INTERLINE TRAVELREPS is merely descriptive of the Class 39
services recited in the application. We have carefully
considered all of applicant’s arguments to the contrary
(including any arguments not specifically discussed in this
decision), but are not persuaded that the Trademark
6 It is immaterial that the actual services that applicant
renders or intends to render under the mark might not include or
involve the booking of interline tickets. Our mere
descriptiveness determination must be made on the basis of the
services as recited in the application, and the booking of
interline tickets is legally encompassed within applicant’s
recitation of services.
Ser. No. 75/909,325
8
Examining Attorney’s refusal should be reversed as to Class
39.
However, although we have found that INTERLINE is
merely descriptive in the context of the transportation-
related services recited in Class 39, the evidence of
record does not establish that the term is merely
descriptive in the context of the Class 42 “temporary
lodging” reservations services recited in the application.
In view thereof, we reverse the mere descriptiveness
refusal insofar as it applies to applicant’s Class 42
services.
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed as to
Class 39, but reversed as to Class 42. The application
will be forwarded to publication as to Class 42.